Hearsay? How so? Third party testimony is hearsay, second party isn't.
I have read the court documents, just as I have read the court documents for Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Kelo.
These cases have nothing to do with this, try reading John F Memorial vs Bludworth (Fla 1984) and Guardianship of Estelle M. Browning (Fla 1990) for a clearer picture.
There were as many hearsay statements that contradicted what Michael was saying, and they had maintained that from the beginning, Michael changed his story when money became available.
This statement tells me that you did NOT read the court documents.
-Traveler
I call bull on you.
The whole purpose of the hearsay rule is to prevent the misreporting of statements made by those who cannot be present in court to testify and be subject to examination by the parties' attorneys and the court.
The rule looks not to the speaker, but to the person whose statement is being reported. It doesn't matter that Michael Schiavo was a party to the litigation; his out of court statement was not in dispute. I suppose you could argue that Terri Schiavo was a nominal party, but she was not present or available to testify. Therefore her statement could not be explored or challenged through her examination by the lawyers and the judge.
So the "admission of a party" exception to the hearsay rule doesn't apply here.